Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  WHUT  October 18, 2012 3:00am-4:00am EDT

3:00 am
>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, john harris, editor in chief of politico, looks back at last night's debate. >> the guts of the race, i think, are two very different candidates, two very different personalities, making fundamentally different cases about what they want from voters and what they would do if voters give them power. when i say we got to the guts of the race, i mean, to some extent we got away from theater criticism. denver was dramatic but it was all about the president's performance. what was wrong with the altitude up there in rocky mountain too high? was he too cokie? was he just somehow off his game? it was all stylistic. and i think the fact that obama came back so strong last night-- romney did fine but clearly didn't have the number two performance, i thought-- it really puts the choice not on atmospherics, not on style but really on the substantive choice
3:01 am
voters face. >> rose: we continue with conductor leonard statkin talking about conducting. >> it is a book designed to let people know so much goes into this than just the concerts that we see. how do we get into it? what influences do we have? does family play a role in this? how do you study? what does a music director do? why is that. >> the most interesting geopolitical dynamic of the wave is 5 billion people are about to become primary customers of wikipedia, google, e-bay, every american english language software companies are going to sweep throughout the world delivering their values, which are western values, right? you see the autumn rage, the arab spring. we're going to deliver our products. we're dlifg the dollar, the
3:02 am
english language, and that's incredibly powerful impact on this country. >> rose: harris, slatkin, sailor, when we continue.
3:03 am
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with politics. last president obama and governor romney locked horns in a town hall-style debate. the president had much to prove. he came out swinging as he attempted to seize momentum back
3:04 am
from governor romney. the governor did not hesitate to respond in kind. >> when you came out in 2014, i presume i'm going to be president, i'm going to make sure you get a job. you took detroit bankrupt. you took general motors bankrupt. you took chrysler bankrupt. when you say i wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you did. >> governor romney says he has a 5-point plan. he has a one-point plan and that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. >> i believe very much in our renewable capabilitie capabilit- ethanol, wind, solar-- it will be an important part of our energy mix. what we don't need is have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal, and gas. this has not been mr. oil or mr. gas or mr. coal. >> when i hear governor romney say he's a big coal guy-- keep in mind, when you were governor of massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, "this plant kills." and took great pride in shutting
3:05 am
it down. and now suddenly you're a big champion of coal. >> so we took a connecticut certed effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. i went to a number of womens groups and said can you help us find folks? they brought us whole binders full of women. trade, i'll crack down on china. president bush didn't. >> you're the last person who will crack down on china. >> mr. president, have you looked at your pension. you have looked at your pension? >> i don't look at my pension. it's not as big as yours. >> it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in benghazi an act of terror. >> get the transcript. >> he did, in fact, sir. so let me-- let me call it an act of terrorism-- >> can you say that a little louder, candy? >> he did call it an act of terror. >> rose: snap polls conducted by cbs and cnn handed victory to the president. the campaigns are now prepping for the third and final debate on monday. it will focus exclusively on
3:06 am
foreign policy. they're also making a major push with undecided voters in key swing state including florida, ohio, and virginia. joining me from arlington, virginia, john harris, editor in chief of politico. i am pleased to have him here. john, let me begin with the question of your headline today in your politico column saying, debate gets to the guts of the race." what are the guts of the race? >> guts of the race, i think, are two very different candidate, two very different personalities, placing fundamentally different cases about what they want from voters and what they would do if voters give them power. when i say we got to the guts of the race, i mean, to some extent we got away from theater criticism. denver was dramatic, but it was all about the president's performance. what was wrong? was the altitude up there in the rocky mountains? too high? was he too cocky? was he somehow just off his game. it was all stylistic and stylistic performance is an important part of debates.
3:07 am
i think the fact that obama came back so strong last night-- romney did fine but clearly didn't have the number two performance, i thought-- it really put the choice not to atmospherics, not on style but really on the substantive choice voters face. >> rose: do voerts get a clear sense of what they're choosing between if the two candidates have violent disagreements over how each other make certain proposals? >> well, i think voters, charlie, get information from a lot of different sources, and they assimilate that information in an impressionistic way. that's not to say they do it in a logical way or that they do it in an unthinking way, but they come to larger impressions of the candidates, larger impressions of the choices. just as we do in our individual lives. i never think that voters making a choice between two sets of policy papers. >> rose: i agree. >> or issue position books. and they're not really judging
3:08 am
these debates like it's a model u.n. debate or a high school or college debate. i think romney erred to some extent. he was so competitive that he could never not have the last word. so he kind of jostled his way into the conversations or started reciting point that really weren't connected to some kind of larger argument. obama remembered that these debate, they're fundamentally not about-- they're not debates. they are leadership stages upon which the audience gets to judge somebody's basic credibility as a leader, their appeal as a person. so that's why i think debates are important. >> rose: it also plays, also puts their perception of the particular candidate was leading into the debate. if something happened stylistically and in terms of a kind of judgmental thing, it can change the perception if it's different from what they knew going in. >> i think that's right. i think that's one reason why denver was so dramatic. both candidates really played
3:09 am
against type. i think in long island, they really played two types. that was a recognizable mitt romney for anybody who had watched the 20 republican debates. he's crisp. he's well prepared. he's intelligent. he's sometimes a little peevish. he's sometimes a little awkward. same with obama. when i say we get to the gut of the race. it means we're not going to fundamentally learn something brand new about these candidates. they are who they are. it come down to two big questions. one sobama's record defensible? nobody is going to give a better defense of it than he did last night. it's not like he was awol in his own defense. and the other is mitt romney credible as an alternatively? obama tried to make a very vigorous case that he's not, but voters are going to make their own judgments, based on position, based on record, based on style. >> rose: what do we know now in terms of where the race is?
3:10 am
>> i think where the race is-- i 19, it is a big question mark. obama was way ahead, and starting to become almost the prohibitive favorite as we recall in september he got such a bounce out of his convention in north carolina, and romney had so many bad days in succession that it was looking to me almost like it was time to call the fight. that's clearly not the case. and denver changed that. what's not clear is if what's happened is this race has returned to the sort of natural contours-- contours-- i.e., it's very close-- but obama has the advantage. or republicans are being very vigorous in making this case which is once romney passed the credibility threshold, is he a plausible president, and he did that in denver, the race is dynamic. it's fundamentally changed. and so the momentum we've seen in obama in national polls and in some key swing states they say is only going to continue that romney having cleared that
3:11 am
bar, there's no-- there's no stopping him. frankly, i'm skeptical of that argument but we only have to wait a couple of days and i think we'll see in the polls who has the better end of it. but in my mind what probably has happened is the debate-- the election african national congress these two debates is back to the natural dynamic. very close, very polarized electorate. president obama still is in the stronger position, and romney's got to make a very difficult case to tell voters fire this guy and elect me. >> rose: those voters that he is trying to convince to do that are people not committed. and are they people who are, for the most part, in their political attitude,ed in and centrist? >> well, everybody says-- or not everybody, but there's a growing bloc of voters and it's now the largest bloc, who say they're independents. the reality is most of those independents default one way or the other. the majority of those independents, or so-called independents have already kind
3:12 am
of returned to their natural poll. the remaining people who are up for grabs, the democrats believe that they're disproportionately suburban women, so that's why so much of the argument is about that. the romney people are making the case that basically, anybody who is not for obama by now, who is not for obama already, is basically just deciding whether or not romney is an acceptable alternative, and that's why they're more optimistic. it's a relatively small single digit, at most 10% of the electorate. >> rose: let me hear you clearly-- most people believe that obama has the people that he's going to vote for him. and that the people that are at play are the people who have not made the decision to vote for him and they're more likely at this stage of political race if we know anything about the history of politics to go for the challenger, if he is or she
3:13 am
is acceptable as a presidential person? >> well, charlie, you just articulated what republicans are telling us, the case they're making. i'm not prepared to endorse that. my own view of many of these people who are up for grabs, big question of whether or not they're going to be motivated to come out. whether they like either of these candidates or they view it as a choice of two unacceptable candidates, tweedle dee versus tweedle dum, in the famous phrase. there's no question, a key variable is independent suburban white women. >> rose: right. and what do the polls show us about them at this moment? >> well, some of the ground that romney made up with the strong denver performance was with that group. much of president obama's very vigorous push-back was in-- was aimed at trying to, as he sees
3:14 am
it, expose romney as somebody with a candidate record and a candidate positions that would be unacceptable to that group. so, anyway, i think that's the key demographic that we're going to be looking for in these polls as they come out over the next 48-72 hours. we're going to be looking at national polls to some extent, but really, the ones that matter, after the debate, the president's senior adviser made very clear, don't pay attention to national polls. state-by-state polls. >> rose: and they feel good about what most of those are? >> well, they say they do. but there's no way could be happy with the trajectory in the 12 days after denver. it was a very unfavorable trajectory for the president. and, you know, i don't think these instant polls taken in the immediate wake of the debate tip crael reliable. but over the next 48 hours we're going to see some indications as to-- we're going to see which one of these arguments is true--
3:15 am
has romney fundamentally changed the dynamic of the race after denver. or basically, it's one win in denver, one win in long island from obama. so we're back to a static position. >> rose: is it likely the third debate will be the decider for this presidential campaign? >> i don't. i'm skeptical of that, charlie. i think the tie breaker is going to be something else. it's going to be candidate performance out on the trail. it's going to be the way the candidates respond in the moment to unexpected demands and news stories. the reason i say that is i expect there will be a good audience for the debate. last night was 65 million. something like that. there's a drama in this. so people are going to continue to tune in. but historically, when debates are important, it's the first debate that's important, the later ones don't usually end up having the decisive effect. and i'd be a little surprised if this third one does. >> rose: what are you reading into, what do you see in the
3:16 am
response to the conflict over libya and what the governor said? >> you know, i think that they-- he left his own party really frustrated with the kind of stumbling and somewhat inarticulate response i thought. after denver, democrats were really made at the outcome, but frankly they were mad at their own candidate, why did you ploa it? we're-- blow it. we're hearing some of that with the republicans. why did you miss that opportunity with libya. i think one reason he misthe the opportunity, frankly, he wasn't taking the controversy over libya, whether the administration made mistakes in not responding to requests for security, why they erred and initially incorrectly describing the nature of that attack. he's not making a larger argument about it, not saying to voters, here's why this matters. here's what this is illustrative of. he got tangled up in the
3:17 am
detaifltz specific incident and lost the audience and gave president obama an opportunity to kind of sort of puff his chest out and sound indignant and say i'm offended that you're questioning my patriotism. obama, i'll say again, charlie, obama remembered what this was about. it's a leadership stage. obama-- romney seemed to think that he was arguing in the classic debate context, in which we're going to get scored by whoever makes the most points with the most logical connection between them. >> rose: what was the audience reaction, whether in the hall or outside, to the push by governor romney to get the president to talk about his own pension account? >> you know, i didn't hear the audience reaction. i know at one point-- i didn't hear it on my screen, maybe you did-- but there was a pool reporter in the hall that said the audience at one point gasped when governor romney got very aggressive with president obama saying, "you wait your turn.
3:18 am
this is my turn." there was a kind of a recoil at that. you know, your episode that you're describing it just was a little bit mysterious because to me it seemed pretty obvious that romney was setting president obama up for exac exactly the rejoinder he gave. look, i don't spend that much time talking about my pension. yours is a lot bigger with mine. >> rose: that's exactly what he did with newt gingrich in the republican primary, talk about his portfolio. >> that's right. it's probably a sort of playing to weakness, rather than strength. >> rose: let me close with this because i think you said it. it will be 48 hours before we really know what polls will tell us about the consequences of last night's debate. >> i think it is. and it may really be 72. one thing we've learned in this business, and maybe slowly charlie because we're recidivists. we're junkies for polls and
3:19 am
we'll grasp any data we get. but one or two polls simply is not a reliable indicator. i don't feel i have a good sense of the race, either the larger national trajectory or individual states until i see a pattern of data, more than one poll. and also the performance of that poll over time. if we see that the same poll taken at various intervals is moving be you can say okay something clearly is going on. we're seeing so many polls. frankly a lot of them are not done with great methodol. even a poll with good methodology is only so valuable in isolation. you have to view it in a broader context. >> rose: there is also the whole aspect after denver, the vice president-- i mean, the governor seemed more confident, seemed different for a while. although, last night didn't measure up to that new confidence. here is what john harris says in his column in politico. "barack obama did well enough in the second debate that he can rest assured about one thing-- if he loses his bid for a second
3:20 am
term it won't be because he is pad at debates. if mitt romney wins the presidency, likewise, it won't be because in the final weeks of the campaign he revealed exciting new dimensions of his personality and record that were somehow obscured during the previous two years. in that sense the hofstra university debate and obama's performance there subseeded in stripping away the atmospherics as john has been talking about." thank you, john harris, pleasure. >> sure thing, charlie upon. see you soon. back in >> rose: leonard slad ss here th. for 17 years he served as the music director of the st. louis orchestra and took over as the headline of the national sympathy orchestra in washington. he has been nominated for 60 grammy award and won 7.
3:21 am
>> rose: he has tab his experiences and put them in a book about conducting. it is called "conducting business:unveil the mystery behind the mast row." i am pleased to have leonard
3:22 am
slatted kin back at this table. welcome. >> nice to be here. thank you for having me. >> rose: number one, i was talking about recardo muto, who was just here. and you told me this amazing story, and here's what interests me about it. you said that you were on your way to chicago for some other reason, and that he had had some accident, and he had a performance scheduled for that night. >> yes. >> rose: and they needed-- >> they need a substitute and they didn't have an assistant conductor. so this was about four hours or so before the show. i was going to chicago to judge a conducting competition. so i had to be there anyway. and my cell phone rings and it's the artistic administrator and she explains that the maestro had fallen from the same. everybody was frightened. he was in the hospital and they didn't be know what was wrong. and she out of curiosity could
3:23 am
you take the performance tonight? there would be no rehearsal, literally just come and conduct. i had my formalled wear with me because i was headed off to l.a. to conduct anyhow. i said, sure i'll be happy to and give the maestro my best. i arrived at the train station about 5:00, went to hohotel, got a quick shower, brought my outfit to the hall and decided i would go through the score and write out little notes for orchestra to read-- "i do this here. i'm an 8 in this bar. this place i will do probably slower, faster." they knew roughly what i was going to try to accomplish, and it all went very well. unfortunately, as we know, the maestro is just fine. i did see him in the hospital a few days later. we didn't know each other very well but we became instant friend. we seemed to have a lot of rapport going on. it's not often conductors see
3:24 am
each other. >> rose: what if it was a piece you had never conducted? is that unlikely? >> i do it at this point in my life. if i was younger i might take the chance if i knew the work well but hadn't conducted. >> rose: exactly, that's what i'm saying. if you didn't know the work you wouldn't do it. >> we have known occasions where the conductor goes out and tries to side read and it didn't work out. >> rose: this was a success. >> this turned out to be a very nice set of performances. i knew the orchestra very well. i had conducted there many, many times in the 80s and 90, so it is a good experience. >> rose: another thing you're doing in your life is unveiling the mystery behind the maestro, conducting business. it is a sense of we look at conductors and they seem like larger-than-life figures. they seem like stars. they seem that they're at the center of something magical happening, which is bringing 100 musicians together. >> the book tries to do
3:25 am
something that i don't think any other conductor has explored. part of it is auto biographical. it had to be in order for me to be able to say how things are done. but it's also a book which is designed to let people know that so much goes into this than just the concert that they see. how do we get into it? what influences do we have? does family play a role in all this? how do you study? how do we see our role as a music director? what does a music director do? why is that different than a conductor? being on the road, what is that about? how do we record. there are health issues and a lot of labor issues the conductor has to be aware of. it's a tough time now. these are the things i try to explain, this is what the conductor's full job is. >> rose: what separates a good conductor and a great conductor? >> i think it's the method of communication to the orchestra. the one thing you can't write
3:26 am
about, that charisma-- you want to call it that-- that ability to communicate. sometimes it's with the eyes. sometimes with the hand gesture, sometimes even verbally upon the great conductor is the one that puts all those elements together and makes everyone in the orchestra react as one. can we really judge that if we're in the audience? you can only judge by what moves you. if somehow you had a performance which has been in your opinion just glorious and you see people around you responding that way, chances are you may have heard a great performance. but if it's a blase attitude, one where the audience goes, "that was nice." could have been good, could have been bad. a great performance is only judged by how everyone feels about that particular performance. was the audience in synch with the stage? were the musicians all really working to play together? there are not that many great
3:27 am
performances. >> rose: who would be on most people's list of the five greatest conductors? >> certain bernstein. tuscanini, fortfangler would be there, and after that -- >> that's three. >> you can then go more or less into the speculation department in terms of who made the most impact. >> rose: von carrion? >> i think for many people, yes, for some, no. his repertoire, at least for the last 30, 40 years was somewhat limited. he was a great conductor because he retained that quality sound in all the orchestras he went to. same thing could have been said about orm andy. people question the intermretation, a little like they did lacarrion. but for me, if i had to pick that one other person, i would have gone with carla maria
3:28 am
juleny, who embo embodied musicn his soul. every time i went to a juleny concert, it took me to another place. the other conductor if you want to round out the five was for me again probably fits reiner, who is the first conductor i ever heard who brought a true sense of clarity, excitement with minimal gesture. he moved like this. and yet, he was able to get this incredible sound sphp. >> rose: what are you thinking when you mount the podium? >> for rehearsal, i'm going over in my head what i prepared in terms of how is this rehearsal going to go? what do i want to accomplish? first rehearsal is usually to get through the music. second and third rehearsals are to 2 into the details. and the final rehearsal is to go through the works and think about how far you came from that first rehearsal. then when you come to the performance, you throw all that
3:29 am
out. a little bit like a football or baseball manager. you have designed your plays. you set up how you want it to go but in order for the game to unfold properly you have to be able to improvise. the conductor needs to adjust the tempo. sometimes an acoustic in the hall will change because the audience is there. perhaps it means some tempos have to go a little bit slower. sometimes the hall will have a dry acutic where the strings have to give a little more bravado, a little more life to the notes. the conductor looks, looks at the section and maybe goes like that, sometimes like, this giving a signal to the orchestra, we need to do something a little bit different. but you can only do that when you you go get to the concert. >> rose: gill kapler be who has been on this show, is it extraordinary that a man who is not a musician can take one piece of music from mahler, and
3:30 am
perform it as a conductor with good orchestras, and perform it well? it is extraordinary. i was one of the first people to truly encourage gill. and we met a couple of times before he conducted a note. i tried to give him some pointers. and he told me about conductors who had rejected and thought he would be foolish to do it. but i saw this passion, this willingness to resk all. i mean, standing in front of musicians is who know everything and with you knowing very little, that takes a lot of chutzpah, a lot of nerve to do that. and yet his-- passion is the best word. it conveyed itself to everybody whenever he performed. and even though there may be technical short-comings, he's always clear in what he wants. he hears what he wants, and he knows how to make a performance
3:31 am
work and i think it's an extraordinary story, what he did to encourage my favorite word in music "amateur," was wonderful. it is my favorite word. >> rose: what's the most interesting in terms of-- what's the biggest mystery behind the maestro? >> the one thing that you can't write about, and that's why did does it work and why doesn't it work? i suppose for the most part, the audience doesn't think about it. even the orchestras don't think about it. they know why it doesn't work but they're never quite sure why it does. when i first went to amsterdam, it wasn't a great collaboration. somehow, my way of rehearsing and performing, didn't seem in sync with the orchestra. mine was ultraefficient "here's what you do here. please play it this way. of as i was taught by my
3:32 am
parents, if something is good you don't have to say anything about it because it's assumed that's how it should be. so my way of working is very direct, and not all orchestras like that. 20 years later, after my debut, i was invited back, and maybe i had changed, the orchestra certainly had changed but we found ourselves on a very similar wavelength, and i wound up conducting for 10 years in a row. you can't really know what it is, but i remember eric linedov, the great conductor had a story he toll me once. i went to hear him on do a brookener performance, and i had never been a big brookener fan but this performance was astonishing to me. i went back and said, maestro, how did you do that? i never felt anything about this music until you did it tonight. and he said, "you're a lot older than when you first heard it."
3:33 am
and our opinions change. >> rose: that's a very interesting thing. some people suggest unless you're over 30 you shouldn't be reading great russian novels. >> but encounter them at a young expaij then return to them. i do that with piece of music. something i did when i was in my 20s and put it aside. >> rose: beethoven's fifth, take the best recordings of it by five great conductors. would each of them sound different to an eastern that you have? yes. not every performance is going to sound different but i think the average -- >> let's assume it's a great orchestra. >> yeah. first of all, a great orchestra will have its own distinctive, sonic personality. in the case of tosk nini, who we also point, you have his
3:34 am
wonderful symphony in studio 8-h, a very dry acoustic. you recognize that sound and the individuals in the orchestra. you also hear what is a fairly straightforward performance, not a lot of freedom. it's more about the structure of the work. then stay you come to carrion, who we've talked about. his orchestra, berlin philharmonic, is a much lusher sound, deeper and darker. so his tempos tend to be a little bit slower to emphasize the sonic characteristic, and anybody can hear that. then say you have david zinnman, who has done an incredible set of beethoven symphony with his orchestra in zurich but he applied principals discovered the last 20-25 years regarding how fast and sloark the kind of sound they made, and he applied it a contemporary orchestra and you hear that difference. you take, i don't know,
3:35 am
harmencorps, with instruments from beethoven's time. automatically the sound changes. they're playing with wooden sticks instead of felt. the strings are playing on gut strings-- cat gut-- not steel like we play today. that changes things. all the great performances of this music or any music what, characterizes it is that it is different from anybody else's. same thing if you hear a singer. if you hear rene fleming nobody else will sound like that. if you hear yo-yo ma, nobody plays the cello like that. the great performers for me exhibit absolute individual artistic content in their presentation that is recognizable. >> rose: the book is call thed "conducting business: unveiling the mystery behind the maestro." leonard slatted kin, thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: michael is sailor is
3:36 am
here. in a single day in march of 2000 his net worth dropped by $6 billion due to an s.e.c. case brought against his company, microstrategy. but man and company survived and thrived once again. microstrategy helps other companies analyze data and make decisions. his first book is called the mobile wave-- how mobile intelligence will change everything. i am pleased to have michael sailor back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, glad to be back here. >> rose: how did you do it? what happened at the moment you faced the s.e.c. charges and somehow were able to come out of that and focus and rebuild? >> the last 10 years were pretty trying for a lot of technology companies, and we all expanded as aggressively as we could in the late 90s. and i think when the bubble bust in 2000, some companies threw in the towel. many were purchased. but i think it just caused us to refocus on our basic principles and we went back to --
3:37 am
>> fundamentals? >> or core business which is how do we create a piece of software that provides value to a corporation? and we had one of the fine companies that really could use that. so -- >> david kaplan, who we know on this program, wrote, in the economic transformation, saylor imagined his rebirth, and as the business cycle rolled along he became a vital player in business intelligences, one of the becausiest nearbies in technology. that's it. >> businesses are always extracting insight from raw data. over the last decade the amount of data people collect is extraordinary. so we're in a good market. it's a good business, and we've been the beneficiaries of the improvement in processor power and devices and computers. >> rose: how do you compare the computer power in a-- let's take that iphone you have
3:38 am
there. somebody or somewhere i read the same amount of computer power in that iphone that enabled man to land on the moon. >> yeah. i think they said the iphone has more technology than the original "apolo" space missions. what's fascinating right now about mobile devices is we're living in a world where there will be 5 billion people with these smart phones and they have them all the time. you're talking about five billion people using them 150 hours a week and the software on a smartphone is 10 times easier to use than a software on the web so you have three orders of magnitude of power. >> rose: who are your clients? >> 4,000, 5,000 different corporation, governments, agencies. >> rose: they come to you and say what? >> you know, "i have a credit card daebs of billions of credit card transaction. find me ought stolen credit cards. of "i have a database of every
3:39 am
telephone call. tell me where the network is working properly. tell me where there are outages." "a database of every product sold in the world, tell me where i'm out of stock and where i have too much. >> rose: didn't people of wal-mart doing a good job of be doing that, hour by hour, day by day, being able to respond to to changes in inventory. >> during the last 20 years, creating intelligent system allow to you optimize your business and inventory has been essential to success in the retail industry, and wal-mart has been one of the best, for sure. i think just about every major retailer is a customer of hours in one shape or form. so we've been a beneficiary of that. the exciting new thing is the dematerialization of half the economy. so it used to be 10 years ago, i was concerned about how i move items back and forth but the items were things like dvds, cds, magazine. well, dvds, cds and magazines
3:40 am
aren't product anymore per they're software and the issue is what kind of software do you need to provide. >> rose: and that's what you provide. >> we're heavily into the mobile market which is about how do i provide software that runs on an ipad, android, smart phone that helps someone do a transaction or you automate a task, like writing a prescription, or home room attend expanse how do you keep track of what the state of the world is. >> the book is how mobile intelligence will change everything. tell me about the changes you see coming. >> well flrkt fourth way the computer-- in the internet wave, about 5% of the country was automated. and we'll see 50% of the economy dematerialize. things like a video camera, tape recorder, a magazine and they used to be products. now they're icons on a screen, and in education, there used to be a service provided by people.
3:41 am
education is now dematerializing to become something out of wikipedia or off of youtube, and as those products and service dematerialize, there's a corresponding rise of software application networks, most of them emanating out of the united states in english, denominated in dollars, often time reflecting american or western values. and those are permeating the entire world because there are six billion people with mobile phones. there are only 300 million americans. >> rose: 6 billion or 5ing about? >> there are 6 billion people on the planet with mobile phones reet now. >> rose: how many people on the planet? >> about 8. there are probably about 7 billion literate people. there'sing another billion that aren't. i think at the end of the day, the real eye-opening conclusion 80% or more of the planet already has a mobile phone. we're moving at a rate within
3:42 am
five years, 5 bill wl of those people will have a smart phone with the power of an iphone or an troid phone and those phones will be 1,000 times as powerful as the mobile phones currently in their hand hand. those phones will dematerialize your wallet, cash, camera, television, music, et cetera. imagine if i've got a device, say a tablet like this, and i'm a student in pakistan or turkey or arnlg steen teena. now i get a free education in english from an american company. i also get all my text books for free. it means i don't have to buy anything from a local provider. it means the education i'm getting isn't subject to the local nation. >> rose: and maybe you can educate yourself as a matter of fact you want to. >> i i was 14 before i could study a foreign language. i could choose spanish or french. i came from the richest nation on earth. now, imagine if you're four years old and have the choice of 100 languages and you don't have
3:43 am
to ask your parents' permission, the mayor's permirkz the local religious leader's position, or the president of the country's permission. now you're endeathering and unleashing the power of humanity to an extent we are never seen. >> rose: some of the concliewgs of your book, the destruction of paper. , new kinds of cash, new kinds of transactions. what do you mean by that? >> i can create a key and put it on my phone and then i can use my phone to open a door. but that's the most basic thing that happens. as soon as the key becomes a piece of software, i can flip the key to 20 people. then i can create a key that only works if i'm not in the house. i can create a key that only works if i am in the house. i can create these magical pieces of software that do things that people never conceived. so a transaction might be a software credit card. i give it to you. gi55 it to your wife and whenever she wants to spend more than $1,000, she has to concur.
3:44 am
or the opposite, you could create software credit card, give it to your child theenl buys food and not alcohol on college campus. that's a new and interesting type of transaction that you couldn't do in plastic. >> rose: and worldwide cheap medical care? >> you know, if you have a cat scan at midnight in the united states, it's a doctor in australia that actually interprets that. a radiologist all around the planet. we just move the x-ray, and he zips it back, and it's daylight for him. i think that immediate is-- it's a service provided by people but it gets expensive to the extent person lives in manhattan in an apartment. but should the radiologist who reads your x-ray in manhattan, why couldn't he be in india where the cost of living is 5,000 a year than $500,000 a years. >> rose: are you worried about
3:45 am
invasion of privacy, hacking, vulnerability to cyberattacks? >> i think there are two aspects of this, one aspect, 80% to 90% of the impact of this is for the good because people can use mobile phones to protect their privacy to defeat hacking. for example, there is $250 billion of credit card fraud. fiput a credit card on a phone. you can't steal. i can't lose it. you can't use it without my knowledge. and ficall in to order something online they can identify your. you're safe tore have a credit card on a phone than walk into a bank with a passport. >> rose: there is a whole lot of identity theft. >> that's flip side. i think what concerns me is a guy can walk into your locker room, with a camera on the phone, snap a photo of you while you're changing and upload it to 20 million people. i think the time is ripe for society to pass laws that give you a right to your own image or
3:46 am
right to privacy. if i put this in front of you and turn on the video and i film 87 million frames waiting for you to pick your nose, and i isolate that out and upload that and that becomes your image, i think i violated your privacy even if i did it in a public place. >> rose: there's no context. >> i ought to be able to eat in a restaurant without someone shooting high-def nition video of me against my will and use it to disparage me or make me look silly or undermine my brand is there this is a winnable argument, especially people in your own technology area? >> it's unclear how this will work out. different political systems take a different view of this. if you look at the german view towards information rights, they're extremely stringent. if you're a patient, your doctor has to have your permission to access your record. i think every country and political system has a different view and they're going to evolve, and it is properly a matter for debate in the botti politic. >> rose: back to your company. what's your involvement with
3:47 am
facebook? >> we have created software th thats the data that is in the facebook cloud into a data warehouse for business intelligence. so facebook is optimized for you to share a photo with your friend. what if i wanted to know how many people in the world think madonna is cool right now who also happen to have college degreedegrees and live in new yk city? i would like to answer that question in one second. to do that you need a data warehouse and business intelligence system. the reason you want to do that is because you'd like to figure out how to market, how to advertise, how to provide services. so we've created that product, and we launched and released a product called wisdom which in essence allows you or anybody else to type in any phrase. you could put in coca-cola, figure out where are the fans, what's brand, and what is the correlation of those fans to every other brand in the world. >> rose: much has been written about the fact about
3:48 am
facebook and apple and amazon and google, big four some would call them. >> right. >> and they often say there's a giant race going on. and that they will be in each other's business but they're all in hot pursuit of some sort of goal of being the best. how do you see that race? >> you know, the media likes to characterize a race or a battle between google and amazon or google and aptele. >> rose: or cool and facebook. >> and they ask who's going to win? it's toatsly mischaracterized. they're all going to win and anybody not in the race is a loser. as amazon releases a taib lloyd computer. it doesn't matter if they defeat apple. the tablet will drive another 100 million units in the market and we're going toward a world with 5 billion people with tablet computers. when there are 5 billion people with tablet computers that means
3:49 am
every local textbook company is obliterated. it means all the local education establishments, every local newspaper, every local magazine, every company is that is not google or apple or amazon will see their business squeezed to 0 or 90% to nief%. half of the country is going to be software. if you're not building the dominant software, you're probably not going to be around. it's not just the simple first order view is my newspaper is software. but a more insightful view is, if the newspaper is software, there's no local advantage to controlling the unions, the politicians, the printing press, and the trucks in your local country. all of those assets are meaningless, which means the "new york times" or some large english language company is probably going to enter the 190-country markets they're not in right now. so you almost can't defend.
3:50 am
the most interesting geopolitical dynamic in the mobile wave is 5 billion people are about to become primary customers of wikipedia, google, e-bay, every american english language software companies are going to sweep throughout the world delivering their values, which are western valleys, right. you see the autumn rage. the arab spring. we're going to deliver our products. delivering the dlark the english language and that's an incredibly powerful impact on this country. >> rose: you said, "whenever teenaged girls and corporate c.e.o.s covet the new technology, something elaebt is happening "and it's true. >> it's absolutely true. two years ago no one knew what an ipad was. i said to my niece what do you think of the big apple? she turned around and say i like the operating is and want one for my birthday. >> i say what are you talking about? >> she said i want an ipad.
3:51 am
>two years later people were getting mem nose the mail saying when your kid shows up for junior high or high school next semester, have them bring an ipad with them. this is the first time in 2,000 years they principal trected that your child bring an electronic piece of equipment to the class. it use to be a number 2 pencil, and maybe the last big change was a calculator. >> rose: where is the fastest growing market today in smart phones? do you know? it's not a trick question. is any nation, any country, any region? >> it depend how to you define growth. percentage wise presumably the fastest growing market will be china because they have the largest base and the fastest economy in general. if you look at where the value is, though, there are 1 billion people that speak english that have high discretionary income between europe and the united
3:52 am
states. any application on the smart phone has to win that billion-people market. if you win the western market, every other market will be yours because it's marginally expensive to get to every other market. i would keep myself focused upon software application companies who are successful in new york and the united states. >> rose: here is larry page not long ago. >> i think it's clear everyone in the world will have a mobile device connected to the internet and that's going to happen relatively quickly. and i think that's a very, very big deal. that's going to be most people's first computer. and it's-- you know, the experience you get is pretty good. it's always on. it's always got your e-mail on it. it's a really great experience in a lot of ways to use your mobile device. and i think that that kind of just works kind of mentality needs to be applied to the whole computer industry. your p.c. doesn't work that way. there's no reason that it shouldn't. and that's what you see probably
3:53 am
with the birth, explosion of tablets, that they just work. they're always on. they can download things for you. they turn on instantly and so on and they have a much better experience. they don't have everything you can do on your desktop. that's coming. >> rose: that's your message here, too. >> that is my message, and my other message is that software operates in cyberspace, not you in tonian space. if you want to be successful as a software company in the new economy you need to be schooled in fantasy more than science fiction. in science fiction you think i throw a baseball in outer space that goes 30 million miles and you try to get the trajectory right. in fantasy i throw the baseball that turns into a baep ball and into a pot of goals and a ferrari that you drive off. if you take any product, the obvious thing to do is port it to the phone. the nonobvious thing is how does it morph when you can do something exwg? this is a credential, an
3:54 am
identification sitting on a phone. this is 1,000 times better than the i.d. you have in your wallet. you can't steal it. you can't counterfeit. you can't defraud it. i can project it thiew a door, i can send it 1,000 miles away and write a check to certify tnorthize tand i can do that from the palm of my manned hand which means there are 20 million organizations on the planet with an i.dpsmed system that is obsolete and they will go through a transformation. >> rose: the mobile wave, michael saylor. thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications
3:55 am
captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
left
right